Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Graham, would you like to get in the ring with manny pacquaio, and throw a couple of sword strikes( a.k.a. shomenuchi)at him? You think you could take him out with sword strikes?
If you know anything in any martial art that is more of a joke than sword strike, please let me know what it is.

Dear Ike,
As it happens the son of a good friend of mine trained in aikido.He now does mma. The son uses Aikido concepts .For what its worth some of his bouts against men from different martial backgrounds have been beaten by this lad in some 48 secs. or thereabouts.Cheers, Joe.

Now, I'm not expert in Aikido, and I doubt I ever will be, but I've done quite a bit of research and reading myself, and I just wanted to comment on one thing, if I may.

The shomen uchi is not, I repeat, not an attack. It is by no means an proper atemi or something you'd expect on the sidewalks or battlefields. What it is is a teaching aid, a way to simulate an attack.

You see, there's only a few ways to attack with arms. Whatever shape the hand is in, the arm is restricted in it's motions due to human physiology. Aikido is a studying of human movement afterall, so you'd expect something like this to dictate attacks.

For strikes that do not grab onto opponent, which end in a connection point, we classify them into: shomen uchi, yokomen uchi, chudan zuki, jodan zuki, gedan zuki, and various others that I don't know yet. For shomen uchi, it is the strike downwards from the top, down your centreline, and cut through, just like a vertical sword cut.

But for strikes like shomen uchi, jodan zuki, chudan zuki, and gedan zuki, the strikes all flow down the centreline, which means they move in a straight line towards you. This is the centreline theory of attack, and you see this famously in Wing Chun. For Aikido, the centreline attacks are to be dealt with using evasion, blocking, or flowing with the strike. The reason shomen uchi is used is do simulate an attack down centreline, so that nage (or shite) gets a good feel for the centreline attacks, so that when transition over to jodan zuki, it because easier to learn. The same applies to other attacks that flow down the centre. The idea isn't to master defense against the shomen uchi, nor to learn shomen uchi so that you may strike with it, but rather to learn and understand the centreline theory of attacks.

Now, you can use shomen uchi to attack, but why use it when there's much better methods of striking? Granted, masters like Seagal have perfected theirs into a deadly weapon, almost like a sword, but for most of us, a uraken or shomen zuki would work far better.

As for the reason why shomen uchi is learned historically? Much simpler answer: sword cuts are done in the exact same motion, and when trying to evade that, you should look at the hand instead of the blade. The hand will tell you where the strike will come, and evading that and countering is exactly the same, with or without blade. The important thing is to understand line of attack, timing, and proper footwork. Everythings will come through following that.

However: how many necks have you broken in aikido? How many times have you struck your partner in the throat or on the adams apple with power and intention? Do you regulary bite your training partners?

The question of sport is irrelevant. You can have realistic sparring/dynamic testing and still not have competitions, you do it because it´s a learning experience.

And a +1 for Demetrios latest comment. The peaceful martial art that resolves conflict without violence, killing and maiming is after all a peaceful activity if done by anybody who ties on a hakama and do a couple of tenkans now and then

Thank you for your answer Peter.

I've covered this flawed logic numerous times. I compete, while I am too old to fight MMA, I have and will if necessary...and I can also walk into just about any Aikido dojo as a yudansha and be able to train with no issues like any other yudansha should.

So, basically, I am saying Graham's comments are incorrect.

Competition as we have covered can teach you a lot about fighting. That is a fact proven by many.

Basically what I am saying is I can eye gouge anytime I feel like it if the situation is appropriate. However when it is illegal based on rules or not appropriate, then I don't. I am really tired of the kindergarten logic that states that because Emma has rules that therefore they can't really fight cause they don't allow it. Utter rubbish spoken by those that have no understanding of what they are talking about.

sorry Graham, but your thoughts on this are very wrong IMO and experiences.

As for the second: What Im not seeing are Aikidoka who can take and mix their art to the intensity of the sport level to make it work... [i.e. how many Aikidoka can make their techniques work without resorting to eye gouges, etc. - and how would one know unless tried out.]

Good point. There is a reason for this. I did a lot of Aikido type stuff when I first started bjj as aikdio was all I knew, so of course I would try the kite gaeshi and sankyus.

Don't do them now, and to be honest as I developed my bjj game, there are a lot of bjj things I don't incorporate either.

In fighting, you have to develop a game or strategy, that is patterns of efficiency that work for you based on the conditions of your fight. It is based on many factors, size, age, strenghpth, flexibility, situation.

Why don't I do the aiki things anymore, well they don't work, and there are better strategies for doing what I need to do. Throw weapons into the mix and I start doing these things again.

Howver much is the same structurally and internally. The problem is a lot of folks, mostly newbs for us on techniques and not on the internals. As Dan Harden talks about constantly, if you have IS...well then it applies universally. I think that this aspect of Aikido is the most important, and the most liberating as you are no longer constrained by a stylistic definition. You simply adapt to the situation.

So I see it as a catch 22. Stylistically you won't see the external, but you can see the internal if you actually understand it. However most do not have this ability nor have they spent the time trying to honestly work through non compliant opponents so they simply do not have the paradigm to really understand this fact.

To me fundamentally, there is no difference between iikyo and omaplata or arm bar from guard. They both follow the same principles. While this is not an example of IS, it is an example of the basic principle of martial kinesiology. However most would say the three are unrelated as they stylistically do not look the same as techniques.

Oh yea...on the whole eye scratching thing.....I have had people checking out bjj bring that up. I say...roll with me for 15 minute without it so you can get a feel for how I control you. Then if you still aren't a believer...then we will allow eyes and groin. But keep in mind, I get to play by the same rules.

Never had ONE person ask to include these things after the 15 minutes. Point is, you only have this luxury if you control the fight. Learn to control the fight through good training. Guess what, we are all born with the skill to eye gouge. Eye gouging does not win fights, but good control will.

Kev, loved this line . . totally agree and try to model it for folks I work with. There seems to sometimes be an assumption that when one gets put in the role of instructor or teacher, that they suddenly become an expert on things way outside the scope of what they're teaching (this can be an assumption held erroneously by the teacher or the student or both).

So, that being said, careful caveats and having a good network of friends that train across the martial art/sport spectrum is very useful. Having enough familiarity to have a legitimate opinion is also good, but being aware enough to know when to refer someone elsewhere is even better.

Hey Buddy, well said with a lot less words than I did. Clint Eastwood said in One of his movies, A Man's got to know his limits"

Also, on Clint Eastwood. Another favorite from the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Tucco said " if ya gonna talk....talk if your gonna shoot...shoot". Lots of wisdom in those statements, even if they are from movies.

Now, I'm not expert in Aikido, and I doubt I ever will be, but I've done quite a bit of research and reading myself, and I just wanted to comment on one thing, if I may.

The shomen uchi is not, I repeat, not an attack. It is by no means an proper atemi or something you'd expect on the sidewalks or battlefields. What it is is a teaching aid, a way to simulate an attack.

You see, there's only a few ways to attack with arms. Whatever shape the hand is in, the arm is restricted in it's motions due to human physiology. Aikido is a studying of human movement afterall, so you'd expect something like this to dictate attacks.

For strikes that do not grab onto opponent, which end in a connection point, we classify them into: shomen uchi, yokomen uchi, chudan zuki, jodan zuki, gedan zuki, and various others that I don't know yet. For shomen uchi, it is the strike downwards from the top, down your centreline, and cut through, just like a vertical sword cut.

But for strikes like shomen uchi, jodan zuki, chudan zuki, and gedan zuki, the strikes all flow down the centreline, which means they move in a straight line towards you. This is the centreline theory of attack, and you see this famously in Wing Chun. For Aikido, the centreline attacks are to be dealt with using evasion, blocking, or flowing with the strike. The reason shomen uchi is used is do simulate an attack down centreline, so that nage (or shite) gets a good feel for the centreline attacks, so that when transition over to jodan zuki, it because easier to learn. The same applies to other attacks that flow down the centre. The idea isn't to master defense against the shomen uchi, nor to learn shomen uchi so that you may strike with it, but rather to learn and understand the centreline theory of attacks.

Now, you can use shomen uchi to attack, but why use it when there's much better methods of striking? Granted, masters like Seagal have perfected theirs into a deadly weapon, almost like a sword, but for most of us, a uraken or shomen zuki would work far better.

As for the reason why shomen uchi is learned historically? Much simpler answer: sword cuts are done in the exact same motion, and when trying to evade that, you should look at the hand instead of the blade. The hand will tell you where the strike will come, and evading that and countering is exactly the same, with or without blade. The important thing is to understand line of attack, timing, and proper footwork. Everythings will come through following that.

Not true.
Shomen is a sword cut, an attack. Replicating this without sword is open hands. Karate people would probably understand this better. Or those who understand tegatana.

The problem as I see it is that "Aikido" is so damned big. Simply put, there are people who practice this way as part of their Aikido training. As long as the student can recognize that training paradigms are slices and not the whole pie, they'll (generally) understand there are areas which tend to be lacking in some way. When I was driving up to see what Aikido practice looked like, the student introducing me to it spoke of sparring with friends in Tae Kwon Do. It's this kind of interchange which I think addresses what you're describing.
And that says nothing about the folks who aren't training to be "martially" effective in the first place. In the world of shooting, some folks simply like plinking away at cans. They can study aspects related to hitting a target while not preparing themselves at all for a fight. This is most martial artists, in my understanding.

Yes...it is so damn big, and there is room for lots of variations and interpretations. I am good with that personally. Budd's post covers it well, and so does yours.

I personally only get up in arms when someone states stuff like, striking is not in Aikido, or Aikido is about avoidance, or Aikido is this, not that..blah, blah, blah.

Aikido if your teaching aiki principles and aiki correctly is adaptable to most anything involving kinesiology. However, if at the fundamental level you are not teaching the physical aspects of Aikido, that is, you are teaching techniques or focusing on the spiritual, or philosophical aspects, without a sound aiki/physical structure...well, I don't think you have much there really.

So to me, it doesn't matter if you teach shomen strike or not, it doesn't matter as long as you have a way to teach aiki as it relates to movement.

So, you can adapt your practice to an 80 year old, someone in a wheel chair, or a 20 year old MMAer.

And those that want to...well they can focus on softening and spiritual pursuits through practice.

It is big enough to do all those things.

Just don't say stupid stuff like it can't apply to fighting, competition, or striking, or what not...it can be integrated in piano playing too.

I've covered this flawed logic numerous times. I compete, while I am too old to fight MMA, I have and will if necessary...and I can also walk into just about any Aikido dojo as a yudansha and be able to train with no issues like any other yudansha should.

So, basically, I am saying Graham's comments are incorrect.

Competition as we have covered can teach you a lot about fighting. That is a fact proven by many.

Basically what I am saying is I can eye gouge anytime I feel like it if the situation is appropriate. However when it is illegal based on rules or not appropriate, then I don't. I am really tired of the kindergarten logic that states that because Emma has rules that therefore they can't really fight cause they don't allow it. Utter rubbish spoken by those that have no understanding of what they are talking about.

sorry Graham, but your thoughts on this are very wrong IMO and experiences.

You may question my thoughts but not my experience.

P.S, Who said someone who is a ring fighter doesn't know about fighting? Or martial artist for that matter. Those who think it equals street or life situations are misguided. It may help or it may be a hindrance, depends on them.

As for the reason why shomen uchi is learned historically? Much simpler answer: sword cuts are done in the exact same motion, and when trying to evade that, you should look at the hand instead of the blade. The hand will tell you where the strike will come, and evading that and countering is exactly the same, with or without blade. The important thing is to understand line of attack, timing, and proper footwork. Everythings will come through following that.

Not a bad answer IMO overall.

Simply put, for me, shomen strikes give us a very simplistic, controlled attack that filters out all the other variables that allow us to explore the basics of irimi and ma ai. It narrows things down to a set of parameters to encourage the development of proper habits of movement and posture.

It has nothing to do with tactics or application at all.

Steve Seagal is no more lethal with his shomen strike than a six year old. It is simply a train methodology, and one IMO that works pretty darn well for what it was meant to convey. Don't read into it too much IMO.

P.S, Who said someone who is a ring fighter doesn't know about fighting? Or martial artist for that matter. Those who think it equals street or life situations are misguided. It may help or it may be a hindrance, depends on them.

Peace.G.

Fair enough...what is your experience as a ring and or sport fights, and or police, military, or street application. It is possible I have misunderstood your background to qualify your thoughts on application of competitive models to reality.

I have no issue with your choices in focus on Aikido, I have taken the time to see your perspective on Aikido as a spiritual practice and I am good with that and respect it. I also would not question it since your background and experience on enlightening people seems to be well established.

I do question your experience in martial application and experiences when you make statement like below when my experiences have proven otherwise. So yes, I question your experience in this area.

Quote:

The joke is thinking there is any comparison. Fights in a ring are sports. Any Aikidoka could go train in those things and make their way up through the levels just like anyone else.

Martial arts are not the same thing. Those who insist on comparing them are not too bright in my eyes.

Fair enough...what is your experience as a ring and or sport fights, and or police, military, or street application. It is possible I have misunderstood your background to qualify your thoughts on application of competitive models to reality.

I have no issue with your choices in focus on Aikido, I have taken the time to see your perspective on Aikido as a spiritual practice and I am good with that and respect it. I also would not question it since your background and experience on enlightening people seems to be well established.

I do question your experience in martial application and experiences when you make statement like below when my experiences have proven otherwise. So yes, I question your experience in this area.

Sigh....(just putting that there because that's what happened when I read your reply)

A lot of questions you have there in such a short space. The sigh is because I have explained too many times about it's effectiveness also. The short answer to your question is too many experiences.

The long answer is I will break it down for you. The special answer I doubt you would understand so I'll leave that for a separate post if necessary.

Sport fights: Never been in sports fights. My friend and co Aikidoka and teacher...plenty of aba boxing. Students or people I've helped range from street underground fighter to competition martial artists. I never care really for they are people who want to learn the principles.

Police: Trained two. Both with great successs in their field of operations.

Military: None for such purpose but some who just happen to be or have been.

Street application: Too many to mention. Thus lot's of experience in such situations as not encountered in the ring and never will be. Every one real. Therefore to me the true martial way of being.

Thanks Graham, so all I am saying is if you have no experience in sport fighting and sport fighting training methodologies, then don't comment on how they apply or don't apply to reality.

Just as I will never comment on police application dealing with use of force as I am not qualified in defensive tactics and cannot offer any real opinion on the risk factors dealing with civilian use of force risk and management.

I do however know a fair amount about sport fighting methodology and applications, Aikido, and military applications, as well as I have my own take on the synergies of philosophy/spirituality. So I will offer my comments and if you note, I will always caveat my statements with something like IME or IMO I have found X to apply or not apply or to be true.

I try to stay out of areas where I clearly have no experience and defer to those that I respect as subject matter experts in those areas.

As always, thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions, I may not agree with what u have to say, but always appreciate that u do take the time to answer directly when asked.

If Aikido doesn't work in a fight then I wouldn't be here now. I was in Viet Nam and it did save my life more than once. Over there it wasn't a fight with rules---just a life and death fight. Don't tell me Aikido doesn't work. Even when I was a deputy with the FTF (Fugitive Task Force) and the USMS (U.S. Marshall Service), I took down my share of violent criminals. Sounds like you have the "battleship mouth with a rowboat *** to back it up" syndrome.

Sounds like you have the "battleship mouth with a rowboat *** to back it up" syndrome.

Phil:

Across the pond, they simply say that they practice a "Zen Martial Art" . In the N.Y. metro area, we say "Can talk the talk, but can't walk the talk." Thanks for introducing a little reality into this sometimes comical discussion.

The shomen uchi is not, I repeat, not an attack. It is by no means an proper atemi or something you'd expect on the sidewalks or battlefields. What it is is a teaching aid, a way to simulate an attack.

Really? so if i got a bottle and crack you over the head, that's not a shomen uchi kind of an attack? i was watching a couple of UFC fights and saw some of the ground-n-pound that looked very much like shomen uchi to me, it was just aiming at the guy laying on the floor, but very much looked like shomen uchi. then there is this thing called hammer fist in kungfu. now if i was on the battle fields, i would very much like to be armed with a battle axe and guess what, it would be "hammer time", shomen uchi all the way, with occasion of slicing for the ankles. sorry, that was the Genghis Khan in me speaking.

Quote:

As for the reason why shomen uchi is learned historically? Much simpler answer: sword cuts are done in the exact same motion, and when trying to evade that, you should look at the hand instead of the blade. The hand will tell you where the strike will come, and evading that and countering is exactly the same, with or without blade.

why looked at the hand or the blade for that matter? those are not your problem. it's the person behind those things is your problem. i am going to paraphrase Saotome sensei, without the accent,
"sword no enemy. enemy enemy"
"hands no enemy. enemy enemy"
well, you got the idea. ki no enemy, without gas mask enemy.

I am just making an observation. There is much discussion about the effectiveness of tool, but little of the operator and their effectiveness using the tool. Not a criticism, an observation. It seems then that preferential bias leads to polarized opinions. What more value is there in the discussion beyond opinion?

I will be starting my own school soon. Dealing with new student's questions underlined with whether Aikido will or will not work in a "real" fight, and how to define that.

The word "real" fight is narrowly defined in much overkilled as the ultimate life and death situation...."the street" fight. Combat the uberfight over dramatically stressed to a toe-to-toe life and death situation. In some odd turn of fate that somehow ends up being defined criteria of a MMA competition. I ask, where then does domestic violence play a role, isn't a real fighting? Then, how about being raped, isn't that a real fight? The paradigms are outside the conventional one being discussed here slip into being morphed into a life and death fight into a mano a mano testosterone contest. Doesn't Aikido have validity of discussion to other violent situations? I don't know how many innocent people are faced with being criminally attacked by MMA?

What about the old self-defense adages of how to avoid a fight, and how Aikido applies to that.

Coming to this forum looking for answers to valid questions, like does Aikido really work in a fight are important to me. A soon to be a sensei, prospective students with large dewy eyes full of wonderment will be asking the same question, but for different reasons. I can't take that lightly. My credibility is on the line. Giving those new students a false impression of Aikido is criminal, I have a conscious. Bottom line is, opinions are great but...when they are narrowed down to polarized opinions much of the value is lost. A broader more dynamic discussion would really help me out allot, as a reader add value. Thanks of the consideration.

Simply put, for me, shomen strikes give us a very simplistic, controlled attack that filters out all the other variables that allow us to explore the basics of irimi and ma ai. It narrows things down to a set of parameters to encourage the development of proper habits of movement and posture.

It has nothing to do with tactics or application at all.

Steve Seagal is no more lethal with his shomen strike than a six year old. It is simply a train methodology, and one IMO that works pretty darn well for what it was meant to convey. Don't read into it too much IMO.

Dear Kevin,
I would suggest that Mr Seagals Shomenuchi would be more lethal than a six year old.Simply put there is more weight behind said shomen. Cheers, Joe.

. I ask, where then does domestic violence play a role, isn't a real fighting? Then, how about being raped, isn't that a real fight? The paradigms are outside the conventional one being discussed here slip into being morphed into a life and death fight into a mano a mano testosterone contest. Doesn't Aikido have validity of discussion to other violent situations? I don't know how many innocent people are faced with being criminally attacked by MMA?

I agree. Most assaults I believe are caused by people we know and they close the distance on use through that familiarity. So, the question is, do you teach your students the clinch, guard, how to escape the mount? The basics of BJJ and Judo newaza? Also how to form frames kick, create space and get away? Things that are done in Muay Thai and Krav Maga.

When dealing with domestic violence we are most likely going to be fighting from a position of failure as our "friend" has used the relationship or argument to close distance on us and put us in a situation of disadvantage or point of failure that we must now recover from.

So, these things could be taught in Aikido. They typically are not from my experiences, but they are taught as fundamentals in all MMA schools, which makes MMA very relevant to the conditions and situations you describe.

However, it is not the pro MMA guys that keep bring the MMA discussion up. It tends to be the guys that want to discount it as a competitive sport that has no applicability to the real world. We MMA types simply present the point of view that is counter to that fallacy...that is all.

The issue is, for most, Aikido is typically taught as a principle based methodology and not a RSBD type methodology. Doesn't mean it can't be applicable, but when you start looking at scenarios such as domestic violence defense, rape, defensive tactics, combatives, you have to adapt and tailor your training to address the identified risk and situations...which alas, cuts into your aiki development time.

It really is about priorities and competence of your teacher in what he understands about training in various methodologies.

The issue is, for most, Aikido is typically taught as a principle based methodology and not a RSBD type methodology. Doesn't mean it can't be applicable, but when you start looking at scenarios such as domestic violence defense, rape, defensive tactics, combatives, you have to adapt and tailor your training to address the identified risk and situations...which alas, cuts into your aiki development time.

It really is about priorities and competence of your teacher in what he understands about training in various methodologies.

Kevin:

The Aiki development time is directly integrated into how we execute techniques and move at my school. I strongly believe that working on immediately utilizing developing skills is the best way to get the biggest bang for your buck. We also work on some scenario based stuff where you have to respond from a bad situation that is up close and personal. I do not believe that you necessarily have to sacrifice one thing for the other. I am up front and honest with my students in telling them that this (formal budo training) is not a fast road to effective self-defense. Next time you are in the area, stop by so you can see how those students you met have changes. I hope that you will be pleasantly surprised. They send you and hello as well!